Saddam will pay, but maybe at our expense

By Tom AllardSeptember 30 2002

Taxpayers may face a levy to pay for any commitment to war against Iraq and such a war would be "expensive", the Defence Minister, Robert Hill, warned yesterday.

The prospect of a new levy emerged as the Treasurer prepared to release Budget figures today that were likely to show little room for spending, with a deficit or, at best, small surplus expected to be the final outcome of 2001-02.

Labor said the levy was the latest in a long line of new taxes from the Coalition Government and could be highly contentious.

Though the Prime Minister, John Howard, yesterday refused to rule out a new war levy, he dismissed such talk as "ludicrous" while a diplomatic solution was being sought. But Senator Hill was more expansive.

"What we've done in the past and what we would have to do in this instance is seek additional funding for the extra costs that would be involved," he said. "We did that in relation to Timor, we did it for the war against terror and we'd have to do it in this instance the same way."");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

The East Timor conflict, for which the Government flagged then scrapped a one-off levy to raise $500 million, won wide public backing.

However, recent opinion polls indicate that the public would support a strike on Iraq only if it was sanctioned by the United Nations.

Former Australian diplomat Richard Woolcott said yesterday that the United States was exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime and engaging in a "propaganda campaign".

Labor treasury spokesman Bob McMullan acknowledged that sentiment was divided in the community.

"It will be very contentious if there's a tax proposition if the community is split over any military commitment," he said.

He added that Labor may support a tax if it means supporting troops with the equipment they need, but he said the Government deserved censure for running the Budget into the red.

At Budget time the Government estimated the deficit for 2001-02 would be $1.2 billion, and figures today will give the final outcome for the last financial year.

Senator Hill said the Government has made "contingencies" in terms of troop deployment, meaning costings would have also been made.

He added: "It would be expensive. You can't do these things on the cheap."

Among the options are SAS troops, counter-terrorism units, navy diving teams, air refuellers, naval support and the lightly armed mechanised infantry brigade.